DESCRIBING plans for a new centralised citizens’ database as a ‘modern form of rolling census’ is disingenuous, to put it mildly. It’s far more than that.

A census is little more than a head count of islanders, with some additional details about personal circumstances to help plan future services. There is very little about the exercise to worry those enumerated given that the data is kept totally anonymous for 100 years.

Of course, there’s no harm in replacing the old-fashioned census, involving an army of enumerators tramping the streets, with an electronic version drawing on existing databases. This already happens and a regular population figure is released, which we’re assured is far more accurate than the old-style census could ever have produced. So what is this new creation supposed to achieve?

I accept that at my age, both paranoia and technophobia tend to grow, but it worries me. When we hear that all our data held by States departments, utilities and medical practices could be held on this new database, alarm bells start to ring.

What’s next? Our credit rating? It may just be an attempt to avoid duplication but it could equally herald a brave new world where the States knows almost everything about us and in order to interact with officialdom – or even pay our bills – we have to quote our ‘unique identifier’.

For some this may seem like a fuss over nothing. Many today think nothing of posting all of their personal details on social networking websites. Others will trot out that tired cliche: ‘If you’ve got nothing to hide then you’ve got nothing to fear.’

What this philosophy ignores is the concept of privacy. I don’t do anything to be ashamed of in my home – well, not often anyway – but I wouldn’t want my private activities monitored.

These days CCTV watches us in the street and Digimap photographs our gardens from the air. Deputy Rihoy is determined we should all carry ID cards and now all our data is to be stored centrally.

If I’m overreacting and it’s totally benign then its real purpose needs to be far better explained before the States agrees to it. Starting off by falsely describing it as a modern form of census doesn’t inspire confidence.

Changing subject – I have considerable sympathy with Alderney’s reluctance to pass an ‘enabling law’ for the introduction of a goods and services tax. If they follow Guernsey in this respect then don’t bet against this regressive tax being introduced in the Bailiwick pretty soon and being steadily increased over the coming years.

Look at Jersey. They brought in GST quite recently at 3% and the clever money says it’s about to go to 5%. In the UK, VAT has relentlessly increased from quite a modest starting level and is now about to go to 20%. Such a tax is just too easy a target for any chancellor.

Of course, if Guernsey goes for GST then, with a common tax pool, Alderney will have to suffer it, too. The question is, do they need to pre-empt that decision by passing the law now?

With the drafting work done, the legislation could be brought forward quickly at any time in the future, with only a modest delay for approval by Privy Council. That would allow proper reflection before bringing in a new tax that would hit the poorest the hardest. Or has the decision already been taken?

Others have argued against GST because they believe Guernsey’s budget deficit can be solved by spending cuts alone. I don’t think that’s realistic without badly damaging vital services. Some extra taxation is probably unavoidable, but GST is the wrong way to raise that revenue. Since Guernsey has approved the enabling law, this bad tax is just a squeeze on a hair-trigger away – Alderney could be the safety-catch.

Finally, what is Deputy Jones up to? Whichever side of the great cigarette vending machine debate you were on, the idea that it should immediately be re-debated is ludicrous. With so many pressing issues to address, the States has no time for such grandstanding antics.

What would have happened if the move to ban the machines had lost by five votes and someone had immediately lodged a motion for a re-debate? They would have been told in no uncertain terms to accept a democratic decision. The fact that he’s managed to get more than seven deputies to sign his requete tells us a lot about the current House.